How does the atonement work? Scripture uses lots of metaphors and images, but there aren’t a lot of specific explanations. The most specific I can think of are:
* Rom 6
* Heb, particularly 9 - 10
* the Words of Institution
Rom 6 speaks of the double exchange. Christ takes our sin and annihilates it. Our old selves die with him. We become new people through his resurrection. This works because of our union with him.
Verse 12 seems to show that it only works because of our willingness to repent. The rest of your concusion here represents a more refined doctrine that is not explicitely stated by these words. This is why I read this whole chapter and do not see that Substitutionary Atonement is a necessary gospel in order to view every single statement St Paul makes, as true.
Heb and the Words of Institution speak of Jesus’ death as a covenant sacrifice, to establish the new covenant of Jer 31:31.
Which words? I see that all the scriptures speak of His life as being that sacrifice (Hebrews 10:9). You have said it is His death. This might have identified the kingpin of our differing views.
Note that Heb 9 specifically associates sacrifice with the first covenant (9:18-22), and it identifies blood as purification, not punishment.
Part of the issue is how we think OT sacrifices work. I assume that God does not require punishment. The prophets are clear that God does not require sacrifice, but rather repentance. So what is the role of sacrifice?
My assumption would be that sacrifice is basically a kind of sacramental way of sealing a serious commitment. That it isn’t primarily punishment is clear from the facts (1) that it is also used for establishing a covenant, where punishment doesn’t apply, and (2) that grain can be substituted for an animal. It’s hard to see how we can punish grain. Thus I think sin sacrifice basically is a way to dramatize and cement the repentance without which the sacrifice is useless.
Definitely, I am viewing it this way. I am seeing too, that the sacrifice doesn't actually help God to forgive. Rather, it is for the sinner to know that God is satisfied with their propitiation. Humans have instilled deeply in their culture, originating from survival instinct and scarcity, a sense of ownership which when applied to transgression (sin), results in an awareness of debt to God which cannot be repaid. So God has instituted for the human's sake, a procedure that they can follow with reverence and sincerity, that they will be able to attain their sense of having been forgiven. What I have a problem with though is people who take it too literally and suggest that without this action, God is not able to forgive, or that because of this action, God is obligated to forgive. That is not how forgiveness works, and to suggest forgiveness works that way can only be seen as deluded. I think this is why those people who are not Christian and object to PSA doctrines as being crazy injustice view God as a tyrannical god. They naturally know that forgiveness can't be bought. But they are in no position authoritatively to challenge the Christians that are pushing it on them. All they can do is reject it, and then the Christians curse them and wipe their shoes on their way out.
[/rant]
Anyhow, what St Paul seems to be appealing to here, is the Hebrew's culture of the time which had become so accustomed to this procedure, and had taken so seriously the requirements of attaining forgiveness of sins, to explain to them in terms that they can relate to (and St Paul being one of that same mindset and culture of the time), they can accept that sacrifices are no longer required, but that sincere repentance is owed. He goes on further to this in Hebrews 10 that after someone has realised the new reality (that is, that
much more forgiveness is now required than before the crucifixion), should someone continue to sin knowingly, there is no such thing as a sacrifice that will purify them (v 26 & 27). This perspective puts a clearer view on the way that propitiation and atonement of sin should be viewed according to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and has provided more clarity to me as to why the Penal Substitutionary Atonement doctrine appears so heretical to me, and why it results in bad fruit.
Note that in 1st Cent Judaism, the death of a martyr has redemptive power for others. Examples are the binding of Isaac (which was treated by Judaism of the time almost as if the death had happened), Is 53, and 2 Macc. I am not convinced that this is because the martyr was punished for everyone else. Rather, his obedience, even to the death, unleashes a power that through solidarity with him, others can experience and be changed by.
Jesus pretty clearly foresaw the disaster that his people would experience if they didn’t repent of their violence. He wept for Jerusalem. I think his obedience and repentance was intended to inspire and through faith transform others. When seen from God’s point of view, it was also a covenant sacrifice, sealing his commitment to his people, and his willingness to take on the primary responsibility, and the cost, of fixing us. As Hebrews points out, something that broken can’t be fixed without blood. Not because God is blood-thirsty, but because things are so messed up that nothing but that level of obedience and self-sacrifice can fix it.
We can only speculate what caused Him to worry. We have such little information to form those opinions on, but I do agree with you, that which God knew before it happened, that blood (death) is one thing that can mitigate sin. But we also know that righteousness can too. But I don't see that Jesus' death was put on Him to somehow pay for sin, but only to extend the growing season (so to speak). It only pushed back the harvest date to allow more crop to be produced. When viewed in this context, the meanings "sacrifice" and "ransom for many" are quite different. Which might cause you to also think again about what is said in Isaiah 53 "the punishment that brought us peace was upon him" - and I have seen how this ties in with the OT sacrificial procedures, which I have just described, gives peace of mind to the sinner. Doesn't actually help God to forgive though. So it is clear that what happened to Jesus is the same that happened to Stephen. They blocked their ears, dragged him outside and killed him. That is what brought them peace. This was described in a very early post on this thread "the wrath of mankind was poured out on our Lord". Those words are rich with meaning, and draw a very realistic image.
In the posting you quote, I was speaking of 2 Cor 5:21. As I see it, this is speaking of the double exchange described more fully in Rom 6. In Rom 6, Jesus takes our sin, transcends it in death, and becomes the source of our righteousness, through resurrection. I believe 2 Cor is saying something similar with Jesus becoming sin, thus removing it from us, so that by union with him (“in him”) we might become God’s righteousness. I gave a more specific understanding of the wording above.
Please note that this can only happen if Romans 6:12 is applied effectively. However Apostle John did not provide so much hope for that, instead he has expressed an apocalyptic vision that eventually the world needs to be completely scrapped. This coincides too with what Jesus described in Matthew 25, wherein He seems to speak in context of a final day of judgement where this generation comes to an end. At some point I am going to need to mention that St Paul did not personally know Jesus, but rather was taught by the disciples who did, and The Holy Spirit. This means that his understanding is naturally formed on second-hand information. Further to this, he is has a rather ambiguous yet extremely precise communication style, which lends too easily IMO to misinterpretation. Yet when one really looks at what he is saying, it becomes apparent that lots of ideas seemingly based on his statements aren't really drawn from his statements. This is what happens over time as people base their beliefs on what they hear in church without asking questions, and then when they are questioned, they are forced to stand by the position they have already taken.
I need to go now, I will try to get to the other posts tomorrow. Thanks to yourself and the others who have contributed meaningful discussion, this is getting interesting. It has been interesting to make this response, as I found more clarity twice while doing this.
